. .. .* * . . .
L dA
00 .- ,
AI
AIR COMMANDAND
STAFF COLLEGE 7'
STUDENT REPORTJOB ATTITUDES OF USAF PILOTS AND
NAVIGATORS
MAJOR PETER S. NARCHEWKA 86-1610
"insights into tomorrow"
A4* AM__sri at L
DISCLAIMER
The views and conclusions expressed in thisdocument are those of the author. They arenot intended and should not be thought torepresent official ideas, attitudes, orpolicies of any agency of the United StatesGovernment. The author has not had specialaccess to official information or ideas andhas employed only open-source materialavailable to any writer on this subject.
This document is the property of the UnitedStates Government. It is available fordistribution to the general public. A loancopy of the document may be obtained from theAir University Interlibrary Loan Service(AUL/LDEX, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, 36112) or theDefense Technical Information Center. Requestmust include the author's name and completetitle of the study.
This document may be reproduced for use inother research reports or educational pursuitscontingent upon the following stipulations:
-- Reproduction rights do not extend toany copyrighted material that may be containedin the research report.
-- All reproduced copies must contain the
following credit line: "Reprinted bypermission of the Air Command and StaffCollege."
-- All reproduced copies must contain thename(s) of the report's author(s).
-- If format modification is necessary tobetter serve the user's needs, adjustments maybe made to this report--this authorizationdoes not extend to copyrighted information ormaterial. :he following statement mustaccompany the modified document: "Adaptedfrom Air Command and Staff Research Report
(number) entitled (title) byjauthor)
-- This not i ce mus t be included wi Lh a ny
reprodic ed or ad apt ed port ions of thisdocumen t.
" " - " --- - " " " • i " . , _:i , - ,: i '' ::: : -'- : ' " "
- ~ ~ r - -'*0*. * -- -
REPORT NUMBER 86-161.0
b.
TITLE JOB ATTITUDES OF USAF PILOTS AND NAVIGATORS
AUTHOR(S) MAJOR PETER S. MARCHEW4KA4 USAF
FACULTY ADVISOR CAPTATN THOMAS M. McFALL, LMDC/AN >.V.
.: _._
SPONSOR MAJOR MICKEY R. DANSBY, LEADE RS1IP AND MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ':""
.4
CENTER, LMDCAPAN TOAM.MALLDA
Submitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment ofrequirements for graduation.
AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE
AIR UNIVERSITY
MAXWELL AFB, AL 36112
,. __.- :::. ;
eLV.&* V
UNCLASSIFIED _ _
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEis REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICAlION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
UNCLASSIFIED2 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. D I-iI UTION/AVAILA8ILITY OF REPORT
I" TAT&MM' *A'A-dfor ulk ilas"2h OECLASSIFICATION/OOWNGRADING SCHEDULE for b.i
Disfrbutn is unrnited.4 PER'OFMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBE HIS)
86-1610
6. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATIONIlta pplicabie )
AC SC/EDCC
6c. ADDRESS (City. State and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City. State and ZIP Code)
Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-5542
118. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING Sb. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERORGANIZATION (If applicable)
. ADDRESS i('ty. Stale and ZiP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NOS.
PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT
ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. NO.
1 T'T L E (IrIl-ude SccurltY CIa ificolion)
JOB ATTITUDES OF USAF PILOTS AND NAVIGATORS12 PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)
Marchewka, Peter S., Maior, USAF13. TYPF OF REPORT 13b TIME COVERED 14 DATE OF REPORT iYr. Mo. Day) 15 PAGE COUNT
FROM TO _ 1986 April 84, SUPPLI MENTARY NOTATION
r-
I I ) 18ROUP S SUB. GR
19 ARS rRACT X ,nlnue on reverse if neeaar" and dentify by block number)
-"A continuing problem in the Air Force today is the retention of experienced pilots andnavigators (rated officers). Measuring job attitudes of USAF rated officers can be use-ful in determining possible factors affecting their retention. This study employed theOrganizational Assessment Package (OAP) and data from the Air Force's Leadership andManagement Development Center (LMDC) to compare and explain significant attitudinaldifferences among pilots, navigators, and non-rated officers. A one-way analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) with the Newman/Keuls follow-up procedure was used to analyze the dataand the results are presented in statistical tables. The study concludes that bothpilots and navigators are experiencing less satisfaction in their jobs than are non-rated officers. Recommendations are proposed to reverse this trend and includeincreasing incentive pay, as well as providing more opportunities for advancement andrecognition in the rated officer career field.---
20 O,- , OitlI ION AVA *LABIL It r OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
ON( L ASIF IC U IJNLIMI T E 0 .C - SAME AS RPT U4 DTIC USERS El UNCLASSIFIED
22a NAIVE OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b TELEPHONE NUMBER 22c OFFICE SYMBOL ,-
(include .1 rea (ode I
ACSC/EDCC Maxwell AFB AL 36112-5542 (205) 293-2483 i
' ~~~~~~~~~~.. . ............ ... ..-.. . . ........ "... . - 'v.'-." .. .'-"-. -,' ." ... -L , " " .'.'- -'*"- ,... ' '' , ' .. . . . . . ." . . . . . . . . . . . .m
PREFACE
This research was conducted with the help of researchers
and staff from the Directorate of Research and Analysis, S
Leadership and Management Development Center (LMDC/AN) at
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Since the consulting and
research functions of LMDC are being phased out by October of
this year, this study was undertaken to help preserve a
small part of a rather large and valuable data base of survey
results from LMDC's consulting program.
The survey instrument used, the Organizational Assessment
Package (OAP), was developed jointly by LMDC and the Air
Force Human Resources Laboratory (AFHRL) at Brooks Air Force
Base, Texas. The computer analyses used in this research
were conducted by the Systems Division of LMDC. Since this
study will be retained by LMDC as a source of management
information, the format was designed primarily for that
purpose and may vary somewhat from the Air Command and Staff
College's research guidance.
Special thanks go to my advisor, Captain Thomas M.
McFall, Chief of Systems Division, and Major Mickey R.
Dansby, Director of Research and Analysis, for their valuable
help and assistance in making this research possible.
iii
ABOUT THE AUTHOR "
Major Peter S. Marchewka is a senior pilot with 4000 flying
hours. He was commissioned in 1972 and completed undergraduate
helicopter training (UHT) at Fort Rucker, AL. In 1973 he was
assigned to the 48th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron at
Fairchild AFB, WA, where he was a UH-iN instructor pilot. In
1979 after completing fixed-wing conversion training at Sheppard
AFB, TX, he was assigned to the 76th Military Airlift Squadron
at Charleston AFB, SC, where he was a C-141 aircraft commander.
In 1982 he was reassigned to the 55th Aeromedical Airlift
Squadron at Rhein Main AB, GE, where he flew the C-9
Nightingale. Besides acquiring over 1000 hours in the C-9, he
also worked as an Operations Controller in the Rhein Main
Consolidated Command Post. Major Marchewka graduated from the
University of California at Los Angeles in 1970 with a
bachelor's degree in Political Science. He earned a master's
degree in International Relations from Troy State University in
1985. He has completed Squadron Officer School in residence and
has completed Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) by seminar.
He hopes to be assigned to a rated staff position upon
graduation from ACSC in residence.
iv
____ ____ ____TABLE' V OF CONTENTS _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Preface.................... . . ... . . .. .. . ....About the Author.....................ivList of Illustrations....................viExecutive Summary.....................vii
CHAPTER ONE--INTRODUCTION................1
CHAPTER TWO--LITERATURE REVIEW.............7
CHAPTER THREE--METHODInstrumentation...................13Data Collection...................15Subjects......................17Procedures......................18
CHAPTER FOUR--RESULTSAnalysis of Demographic Information. ........ 21Attitudinal Comparisons Among Pilots,
Navigators and Non-Rated Officers. ........ 22
CHAPTER FIVE--DISCUSSION...............27
CHAPTER SIX--CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSummary.........................33Conclusions........................34Recommendations.....................35
REFERENCES........................37
APPENDICES:Appendix A--Demographic Information. .......... 41Appendix B--Attitudinal Comparisons Among
Pilots, Navigators, and Non-Rated Officers..............53
Appendix C--Organizational Assessment PackageSurvey: Factors and Variables. . 59
Acces7,1011 For
NTIS 2'_,A&l
Just i_ - -
v Dist
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ''___
TABLE 1--Summary of Significant Differences:Work Itself ....................... 23
TABLE 2--Summary of Significant Differences:Job Enrichment ..... ............... 24
TABLE 3--Summary of Significant Differences:Work Group Output .............. 26
TABLE A-i--Number of Respondents by Study Group 43TABLE A-2--Sex by Study Group .... ............ 43TABLE A-3--Age by Study Group .... ............ 43TABLE A-4--Time in Air Force ............. 44TABLE A-5--Months in Present Career Field . ...... 44
TABLE A-6--Months at Present Duty Station . ...... 45TABLE A-7--Months in Present Position .. ........ 45TABLE A-8--Ethnic Group ..... ............... 46TABLE A-9--Marital Status ..... .............. 46TABLE A-10--Spouse Status: Pilots ... .......... 47TABLE A-li--Spouse Status: Navigators .. ........ 47TABLE A-12--Spouse Status: Non-Rated .. ........ 47TABLE A-13--Education Level .... ............. 48TABLE A-14--Professional Military Education ..... .. 48TABLE A-15--Number People Directly Supervised .... 49TABLE A-16--Number People for Whom Respondent
Writes APR/OER/Appraisal .. ......... . 49TABLE A-17--Supervisor Writes Respondent's
OER/Appraisal ..... .............. 50TABLE A-18--Work Schedule ..... .............. 50TABLE A-19--Supervisor Holds Group Meetings ..... .. 51TABLE A-20--Supervisor Holds Group Meetings to
Solve Problems ..... .............. 51TABLE A-21--Aeronautical Rating and Current Status 52TABLE A-22--Career Intent ..... .............. 52
TABLE B-i--Comparison of OAP Factor Scores AmongPilots, Navigators, and Non-RatedOfficers ...... ................. 55
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYA
Part of our College mission is distribution of the Astudenti' problem solving products to l)oD
• sponsors and other interested agencies toenhance insight into contemporary, defense
j,, related issues. While the College has accepted this
product as meeting academic requirements forgraduation, the views and opinions expressed orimplied are solely those of the author and shouldnot be construed as carrying official sanction.
"insights into tomorrow" __
REPORT NUMBER 86-1610
AUTHOR(S) MAJOR PETER S. MARCHEWKA, USAF
TITLE JOB ATTITUDES OF USAF PILOTS AND NAVIGATORS
I. Purpose: To investigate significant differences in the jobattitudes of Air Force pilots, navigators, and non-rated officersand to propose recommendations for leaders and functional managersin the pilot and navigator career fields.
II. Background: A continuing problem in the Air Force today is theretention of experienced pilots and navigators. The rapid expansionof commercial air service, as well as the anticipation of a largenumber of commercial pilots reaching retirement age, has made 1985 arecord year for civilian flight crew hiring. Ex-military pilotscontinue to be the airlines' most preferred resource and this trend,along with the exodus of experienced navigators, has Air Forceofficials concerned. The Air Force needs to retain highly qualifiedand experienced people in an age when training costs are becominginsurmountable due to our advanced and highly sophisticated weaponsystems. One way to analyze this problem and attempt to determinewhy our rated officers are leaving the Air Force is through a jobattitude survey. In 1978 the Leadership and Management DevelopmentCenter (LMDC) et Maxwell AFB, AL, together with the Air Force Human C..
Resources Laboratory (AFHRL) at Brooks AFB, TX, developed theOrganizational Assessment Package (OAP). The QAP employs such asurvey and, together with the cumulative data base at LMDC, servesas a basis for the present research.
Vii"J jj
.. --.-
____________CONTINUED________.
III. Procedures and Results: The initial step in determiningwhether attitudinal differences exist among pilots, navigators, andnon-rated officers was to review past OAP results and organizationalbehavior literature to determine what previous researchers hadlearned about work attitudes of pilots and navigators. Significantfactors contributing to turnover of Air Force pilots and navigatorsin previous studies included assignment policies, pay and benefits,work schedule and time off, additional duties, as well as theopportunity for civilian employment. One additional finding ofprevious research which was interesting was that the perception ofjob satisfaction for non-rated officers was significantly higherthan for rated officers The next step in the present research wasto make statistical comparisons in analyzing responses of over12,600 officers who had taken the OAP survey between 1 October 1981and 16 September 1985. Analyses of their responses were made in twoseparate comparisons. The first comparison, "Analysis ofDemographic Information," further characterized the three samplegroups: pilots, navigators, and non-rated officers. The secondcomparison, "Attitudinal Comparison," compared job attitudes of thethree study groups in four organizational subareas: the workitself, job enrichment, the work group process, and the work groupoutput. Demographic analyses were conducted using the StatisticalPackage for the Social Sciences (SPSSX) procedure CROSSTABS.Attitudinal analyses were conducted with one-way analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) using an alpha = .05 significance level with theNewman/Keuls follow-up procedure to determine whether pilots andnavigators differ from one another or from non-rated officers at the95% confidence level. While the results of these analyses did notproduce any real surprises, they did indicate that significantattitudinal differences exist among the three study groups in threeof the four organizational subareas on the OAP: the work itself,job enrichment, and the work group output. As hypothesized, thefactor of Job Related Satisfaction was perceived as significantlyhigher by the non-rated officers than by the rated group. Among therated officers, lowest perceptions of Job Related Satisfaction wereamong the navigators. The finding that pilots reported lower JobRelated Satisfaction than the non-rated officers and yet reporteda higher degree of Pride in their work seemed somewhat ambiguous.
viii
U.
CONTINUED___
IV. Conclusions:
1. Both pilots and navigators are experiencing lesssatisfaction with factors surrounding their jobs than are non-ratedofficers in the Air Force.
2. Navigators in the Air Force have a less positive view ofthe importance of their jobs in comparison to pilots andnon-rated officers probably because their jobs are diminishing inimportance due to technology.
3. Increasing flight pay for rated officers will notnecessarily lead to increased job satisfaction, but will probablyhelp solve rated officer retention problems.
V. Recommendations: While additional research should be conductedinto analyzing what variables or particular factors of jobsatisfaction have the most impact upon pilots' and navigators'attitudes, the following recommendations were made in light of thepresent research:
1. Allow rated officers who desire to actively fly throughouttheir entire careers equal opportunities for promotion andrecognition.
2. Increase the opportunities for navigators to gainexperience outside the navigator career field into areas where long-range career progression potential is greater.
3. Increase flight pay for rated officers commensurate withtheir responsibilities and duties in the cockpit in order toeffectively compete with and offset civilian recruitment efforts.
ix
Chapter One
INTRODUCTION
Although for the first time in almost a decade the Air
Force has more rated officers than it has cockpit
requirements ("Flier Surplus," 1985), the retention of
experienced pilots and navigators continues to be a major
challenge facing the Air Force. In 1980, the Chief of Staff,
United States Air Force, General Lew Allen, Jr., identified
the problem when he said: "retaining quality people has
never been more critical for us. Preserving experience
levels is absolutely essential if we are to maintain an
adequate state of readiness" (1980, p. 49). He stated
earlier, "the exodus of young pilots and navigators has
affected every aspect of our force planning. Their departure
will be felt well into the future" (Air Force Policy Letter
for Commanders, 1979). Concerns like those expressed by
General Allen have led Air Force officials to investigate a
number of factors influencing retention (Bonnell & Hendrick,
1981; Cooper, 1982; Finneran, 1980). The present paper
contributes to this body of research by exploring one crucial
set of factors influencing retention--job attitudes. Before
discussing job attitudes, however, perhaps we should review
recent thinking on the pilot/navigator retention issue.
.I
.rJ2
In ".n attempt to curb the attrition rate of pilots and
navigators, Tidal McCoy, Assistant Secretary to the Air Force
for Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Installations, says the Air
Force plans to ask Congress to increase officer flight pay in
FY 1987 (Ginovsky, 1985). This is in direct response to the
attractive alternatives commercial airlines are offering Air
Force pilots. The airline industry has increased pilot
hiring dramatically in 1984 and 1985. This trend, coupled
with the perception of some members that military career
benefits will continue to erode, has Air Force officials
concerned that more and more pilots will decide to leave the
service.
One could draw a comparison between the situation today and
the period just before 1978. In that year of airline
deregulation and force reduction, pilot retention rates dropped
to all-time lows, costing the service billions of training
dollars and immeasurable losses of combat pilot experience.
Air Force officials estimate that it costs about $1 million to
train a pilot. Looking at it strictly from an economic
standpoint (disregarding the vast amount of corporate knowledge
lost which cannot be measured in dollars and cents), the loss
of 1000 pilots means the loss of a billion dollars.
Regardless of why pilots and navigators leave the Air
Force, the basic point remains: As long as the Air Force's
mission is to fly and fight, and as long as aircraft continue
to be used as vehicles to support national policy and provide
2
.- . , , .,.,- - . , . . . .• .- o ~ . . ,,. - . . . .. ... .
national defense, the Air Force will need highly trained and
qualified pilots and navigators to man those aircraft.
Dees and Jokerst (1985) propose that in order to halt the
present exodus of rated officers, Air Force leadership must be
willing to admit that people are their most valuable asset.
The attitude that "if a person isn't happy with his job then we
don't need him," is not realistic or effective in today's Air
Force. Instead, Air Force leadership must be willing to
identify problem areas and attempt to alleviate their people's
unhappiness. The Air Force needs highly qualified people and
it's just too costly to blindly let them go.
One method Air Force officials have used to determine where
"people problems" lie is through attitude surveys. Measuring
the attitudes of United States Air Force rated personnel can be
crucial in determining factors or possible contributors
affecting their retention. The Organizational Assessment
Package (OAP), administered by the Air Force's Leadership and
Management Development Center (LMDC) at Maxwell AFB, Alabama,
has proven to be one valuable source of attitudinal data. The
OAP measures the member's attitudes on a number of relevant job
and retention dimensions. The present paper employs OAP data
collected by LMDC to explore the attitudes of rated officers
and compare attitudes of pilots and navigators with attitudes
of non-rated officers. This study pursues four goals:
-,~3
1. To conduct a review of current background research and
theory to determine what previous researchers have learned
about the work attitudes of pilots and navigators, and to
determine whether there are hypothesized or confirmed
differences among pilots, navigators, and non-rated Air Force
officers;
2. To compare demographic and attitudinal results on the
OAP for pilots versus navigators versus officers in other Air
Force career areas;
3. To analyze significant attitudinal differences among
pilots, navigators, and non-rated officers in light of the
results of the present research, other research, and
peculiarities of pilots' and navigators' duties; and
4. To develop recommendations for leaders and functional
managers in the pilot and navigator career fields.
These goals are addressed as follows: First, Chapter Two
presents the results of the literature review and highlights
those studies that are most significant. Next, Chapter Three
shows the methodology used--the OAP, how the data were -C
collected, and a description of the specific groups involved
(i.e., pilots, navigators, and non-rated Air Force officers).
Chapter Four compares the results on the OAP for the three
groups of officers using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
with the Newman/Keuls follow-up procedure to determine whether
pilots and navigators differ from one another or from non-rated
officers at the 95% confidence level. Chapter Five presents a
4-,.
discussion of the findings. Finally, Chapter Six lists
conclusions and recommendations.
5.
Chapter Two
LITERATURE REVIEW
Numerous studies and extensive research have been
conducted in the area of organizational behavior, and in
particular, on job attitudes of people who make up
organizations. Hunsicker (1983, p. 2-54) states:
By understanding an organization's objectives,structure, and formal processes, you will havea basic idea of what the organization is like.Nevertheless, the picture is not complete untilyou consider the really dynamic aspect oforganizations: people and their behavior.
This present research focuses on people and their behavior.
Specifically, it focuses on the job attitudes of two
particular groups of people (pilots and navigators) within a
particular organization (the United States Air Force).
Previous research and studies on human behavior in the
organizational work environment have included everything from
psychological approaches (Maier, 1965) to scientific manage-
ment theories (Taylor, 1911). A good starting point in the
study of job attitudes of Air Force pilots and navigators is
a review of what previous studies have been done in this
field.
In 1927, an intensive research program conducted by the
Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago (Hawthorne
7...... ......
Study), clearly demonstrated the effects of job attitudes on
production (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1943). Initially
attempting to investigate the effects of such factors as
temperature, humidity, lighting, and length of workday on
production output, the Hawthorne study changed emphasis to
study how improving supervision can lead to more favorable
work attitudes. The discovery that relationships between
workers and their supervisors are more influential than the
effects of environmental conditions on production output
formed the basis for a new frame of reference in industry.
The Hawthorne Study clearly showed that the job attitudes of
workmen directly influence both individual performance and
group effort.
Another important work relating job attitudes to job
satisfaction is Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory
(Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959). Based on interviews
of two hundred engineers and accountants, Herzberg identified
five factors as strong determinants of job satisfaction--
achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and,.
the work itself (the "motivators"). He also identified five
ractors which must be adequately dealt with primarily to
prevent job dissatisfaction. These ("hygiene") factors were
company policy and administration, supervision, salary,
interpersonal relations, and working conditions. Herzberg et
al. (1959) concluded that while both kinds of factors meet
the needs of the employee, it is primarily the "motivators"
8
'K-..-.> .. ~---............... .....
that produce the kind of job satisfaction and improvement in
performance that industry is looking for.
While the Hawthorne and Herzberg studies looked at the
relationship between job attitudes and job satisfaction in
the general field of industry, several previous studies have
been conducted by the Air Force that deal specifically with
navigators' and pilots' attitudes. Cantrell & Hartman (1968)
and Cantrell (1969) completed a series of studies on trends
In attitudes and job satisfaction of aircrew members in the
Military Airlift Command (MAC). These studies looked at both
officers and airmen in one particular command and identified
certain problem areas that contributed to lower retention.
These problem areas included: hours flown each month,
getting planned time off, additional duties, and low level
of job satisfaction. As part of a worldwide, on-site
investigation of accident trends, Dryden, Kirs.hner and
Hartman (1970) did a similar study in conducting a survey on
morale and job satisfaction in one component organization of
MAC--the Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service. They
discovered similar trends in support of Cantrell's research.
While Cantrell's research focused on one particular
command (MAC), the Air Force discovered in 1978 that the high
loss rate of rated officers that MAC was experiencing was
beginning to occur in other commands as well (Giles, 1980).
Bonnell and Hendrick (1981) completed a study that looked at
all commands, and focused particularly on the turnover rate
9
of pilots and navigators in the six-to-eleven year group.
Significant factors contributing to turnover of pilots and
navigators in this year group were assignment policies,
satisfaction with supervisory style, and pay and benefits.
Bonnell and Hendrick also noted that the opportunity for
civilian employment was a significant determinant of turnover
for pilots. Blackburn and Johnson (1978) had done earlier
research on the turnover of young officers in the Air Force
and had identified ten variables which were determining I-"
factors of turnover. These included such things as pay, age,
tenure, promotion, peer group integration, job autonomy and
responsibility, and task repetitiveness, to name a few.
Gulick and Laakman (1980) attempted to confirm the thesis
proposed by Blackburn and Johnson as it applied to Air Force
pilots. They found that the assignment policies of the Air
Force were the primary factors in encouraging pilots in the
six-to-eleven year group to get out.
One final study worth mentioning is an Air Command and
Staff College research report on job satisfaction as a
function of time on station, time in present position, and
aeronautical rating (Henggeler, 1981). Using OAP data, the
results of this study indicated that the perceptions of job
satisfaction were significantly higher for non-rated officers
than for rated officers.
In reviewing the previous research that has been done in
this field, the author believes this research study will
10
reinforce what Henggeler and previous researchers have found:
job satisfaction for non-rated officers will be significantly
higher than for rated officers due to differing attitudes and
perceptions between the two groups. It is the purpose of this
study to identify those job attitudes that are significantly
different and to ascertain some logical reasons why they are
different. The next chapter explains the methods used to obtain
the data upon which this report is based.
I
4
iiL
...........................................---.... .... .... .
* .-... .. . . - ... . ...-. . . ..-. -. . ., . -.-. . S . . . . . .. . , ,.*-*. ..-.*, - . -, * , , .. . - , - • .
vI
' 'I
Chapter Three
METHOD
An important aspect of any research is the method or means
used to collect the data. The survey questionnaire is one means
(of collecting data and was used in this particular research
study to measure the job attitudes of Air Force members. If the
data are to be useful, however, the survey should be carefully
designed and administered so that the results will be accurate
and allow valid comparisons over time. The Organizational
Assessment Package (OAP) employs such a survey and is the basis
for the method used in this study. This chapter describes the
survey instrument used, the data collection (how the survey was
administered), the people or subjects involved in the research,
and the procedures used to analyze the data.
Instrumentation
The OAP survey was developed jointly by LMDC and the Air
Force Human Resources Laboratory (AFHRL) at Brooks Air Force
Base, Texas with three purposes in mind: (a) to provide
management consultation to Air Force commanders, (b) to provide
leadership and management training to Air Force personnel in
their work environment, and (c) to conduct research on Air Force
organizational issues utilizing the established data base.
13
.................................................... .. "
T~~~ - R1 1
The principal instrument of the OAP is a 109-item survey
divided into seven categories: Background Information includes
demographic information and questions about the respondent's vA
current job; Job Inventory measures perceptions of job ski]ls
needed and used, the significance of the job, and job autonomy;
Job Desires asks for characteristics that the respondent would
like to see in the job; Supervision measures each subordinate's
perceptions of the immediate supervisor's behavior; Work Group
Productivity measures the respondent's perception of the
quantity and quality of work accomplished by his or her group
compared to other groups; Organizational Climate measures
perceptions of vertical, horizontal, and lateral communications,
as well as standards and rewards within the organization; Job
Related Issues seeks responses on factors such as family
attitudes toward the job, adequacy of training, and job
security. Respondents reply to survey items using a 7-point
scale, with "i" usually indicating strong disagreement or
dissatisfaction with the question or statement, and "7" usually
indicating a high level of agreement or satisfaction.
After two years of field tests, Hightower and Short (1982)
reexamined and confirmed the validity of the OAP as a reliable
data-gathering instrument. Furthermore, the validity of the OAP
process has been confirmed by the business schools at Harvard
University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Boston
14
....................
University (Rittenhouse & Wilkerson, 1982). A detailed
description of the survey is contained in Appendix C.
Data Collection
All data for the present report were collected as an
integral part of LMDC management consultation efforts. To
initiate the entire OAP process, an Air Force unit commander
must invite a team of LMDC consultants to visit the unit
(normally a wing or base comprised of several thousand
personnel). During their visit, the consulting team begins by
collecting data from a number of sources. These include:
examining organizational charts; administering open-ended
questionnaires to supervisors in the organization; interviewing
supervisors; reviewing objective work performance data of the
organization such as Management Effectiveness Inspection (MEI),
Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI), Maintenance
Standardization and Evaluation Team (MSET) and Inspector General
(IG) reports; and administering the OAP survey.
The OAP survey is administered to every available individual
within each work group of the organization during normal duty
hours. (A work group is a collection of employees working under
a single supervisor.) The survey is given as a census of the
organization to which LMDC has been invited. All military and
civilian members of the organization are scheduled for the
survey administration in group sessions, They are assured of
the confidentiality of their individual responses, and purposes
15
. . ...~~~ .. | ~
of the data gathering are explained. Only personnel from LMDC
handle completed surveys.
Upon completion of this initial data collection, the
consultants return to LMDC to thoroughly analyze the data from
all the sources. Six to eight weeks later, the consultant5;
return to the client unit and provide specific feedback to the
commander and supervisors at all organizational levels. Results
are strictly confidential and individual feedback is given only
to the supervisor concerned. If problem areas are identified,
consultants and supervisors develop management action plans to
resolve conflicts at the lowest level. Within nine months of
this second visit, the LMDC team returns to the unit for a third
time to readminister the OAP survey and interview supervisors
with whom they initially formulated management action plans.
This time the OAP is used as an evaluation instrument to
determine the effectiveness of the management consultation
process in that particular unit. After follow-up results are
compared with data analyzed before the consultation process, a
final report is submitted to the organizational commander.
The data collected from each OAP survey are stored in a
cumulative data base at LMDC for future research. Computer
support systems enable LMDC to index, store, and retrieve data
about many aspects of leadership and management in the Air
Force. Data for the present report, for example, include initial
(pre-intervention) surveys administered between I October 1981
16
and 16 September 1985. Data may also he recaled by demographic
information such as personnel category, pay grade, age, sex,
D[uty Air Force Specidlty :o)de (DAFW..) , Primary A ir Force
Spec-alty Code (PAFSC), major command, time in service, etc.
Moreover, a unique coding system can combine the data by work
group and correlate the same codes for similar work groups Air
Force. wide. This capability provides senior functionaI managers
with data on issues in their areas of responsibility without
identifying specific organizations.
Subjects
Since all Air Force pilots and navigators are officers, the
sub jOcts of this research are strictly commissioned officers in
the TJn ited States Air Force. The "pilots" group is comprised of
buth., rotary and fixed-wing pilots whose responses are included
in 1 rho LMDC data base, numbering 2,514. This group includes
-,sth those pilots in actual flying positions (crew/operations
jol.' and also those pilots in non-li' g ,- ' ii;pport jobs. The
i (, Ids true for the "navigators" groop. Responses from the
(;AP i-lta base of 1,003 navigators are inluded in this study,
rw. ,rd less of whether they were operati. ally flying or in a
, t i oh at the time. The data base Jmpali son group for
-''. .- .earch i- coinpri!ed of "non rat(-(]" oft i-c( r- with
. i.s io the OAP data base, numeri 1c 9, 107. In summary,
re tken from CAP survey-1' amt d "1y 12,624 officers
17
.- - - . . - - - . '- < r
-' - -
- .". . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .-
from 65 bases worldwide in nine major commands. For more
detailed information on the subjects, see the demographic tables
in Appendix A.
Procedures . . ... . . . .'...
The OAP survey answer sheets completed by the respondents
are computer processed, allowing for statistical comparisons in"
analyzing responses among pilots, navigators and non-rated
officers. Analyses of the groups' responses were conducted in".4
two separate comparisons. The first comparison, "Analysis of
Demographic Information," is furnished to further characterize
the three sample groups, not to suggest a reason for differences
which might be found between the groups. The second comparison,
"Comparison among Pilots, Navigators and the LMDC Data Base,"
compares job attitudes of pilots, navigators, and non-rated
officers.
The number (N) presented throughout this study is the tutal
number of valid responses in the OAP data base for the variable
or key factor being examined. Statistical analyses were
performed using recommended procedures contained in the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSSx) User's Guide
(1983). Demographic analyses were conducted using the SPS x '
procedure CROSSTABS. Additional analyses were conducted with
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using an alpha = .05
significance level with the Newman/Keuls follow-up procedure to
determine whether pilots and navigators differ from one another
18
.. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. •,•. .-.- . ,
$04
or from non-rated officers (data base group) at the 95%
confidence level.
Comparisons were made in four organizational subareas: the
work itself, job enrichment, the work group process, and the
work group output. See Appendix C for the Factors and Variables•
I ,
trom the OAP survey which comprise these areas. The next
chapter presents the results of the demographic and attitudinal
comparisons.
S.
'
~.r.. • °
-.5
- - . " • 1l II -I 1
Chapter Four
RESULTS
Analysis of Demographic Information
Tables A-i through A-22 provide detailed demographic
information about the pilots, navigators, and non-rated officers
who responded to the OAP survey and upon whose attitudes this
present research is based. As previously mentioned, 12,624 Air
Force officers completed OAP surveys, of which 2,514 are pilots
and 1,003 are navigators. The non-rated officers in the OAP
data base number 9,107. Eleven percent of the pilot and
navigator respondents are filling rated support jobs rather than
actively flying. Eighty-three percent of all respondents are
white males and more than 77% are married. Over half of the
respondents have 8 or more years in the Air Force and 79%
have been in their career fields for 18 months or more. The
education level of the respondents is fairly typical of the
officer corps with 53% having bachelor's degrees, while more
than 45% hold master's degrees or higher. The average age of
the respondents is between 21 and 40 years old (83%) and over
73% indicate they will make, or will likely make, the Air Force
a career. As far as their work schedule goes. 74% of non-rated
21
4
officers work days, while only 19% of pilots and 21% of
navigators work day shifts.
Attitudinal Comparisons Among Pilots,
Navigators and Non-Rated Officers
Table B-i provides detailed comparisons among the three
study groups in the four areas of organizational functioning.
Results of the ANOVA indicate that significant attitudinal
differences exist among pilots, navigators, and non-rated
officers in three of the four organizational subareas: the work
itself, job enrichment, and the work group output.
In the first subarea, the work itself, a summary of the
significant differences is provided in -ble 1. All three study
groups differ significantly in four of the six factors that
measure the work itself. These factors are: Job Performance
Goals, Task Characteristics, Work Repetition, and Job Related
Training. While pilots express more positive views than either
the navigators or the non-rated officers in Job Performance
Goals, Task Characteristics, and Job Related Training,
navigators express a higher degree of Work Repetition in their
jobs. In the factor of Task Autonomy, pilots and navigators do
not differ significantly from each other in this factor, but
both groups differ significantly from the data base and express
* less autonomy in their jobs than their non-rated counterparts.
The only factor of the work itself where no two groups are
% significantly different at the alpha .05 level is Desired
Repetitive/Easy Tasks.
22' :0
*, *. '. ".. 4,'. : . . ." "" ." " "". ". '.';'" "'".-N - -.- -9 .':.' ' -'['- '- '[ i-< ,
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES: WORK ITSELF
FACTOR GROUP MEAN SUBSETa
Job Performance GoalsNON-RATED 4.68 1NAVIGATORS 4.76 2PILOTS 4.88 3
Task Characteri sticsNAVIGATORS 5.19 1NON-RATED 5.34 2PILOTS 5.41 3
Task AutonomyNAVIGATORS 3.92 1PILOTS 3.99 1NON-RATED 4.78 2
Work RepetitionNON-RATED 4.21 1PILOTS 4.57 2NAVIGATORS 4.67 3
Job Related TrainingNON-RATED 4.52 1NAVIGATORS 4.86 2PILOTS 5.19 3
aGroups not in the same subset are significantly
different at the .05 level.
In the organizational subarea of job enrichment (Table 2),
all three groups again differ significantly from one another in
four of the six factors that measure job enrichment. Pilots
express more positive views on Skill Variety and Task Identity,
and non-rated officers express a higher Need for Enrichment and
have an overall higher Job Motivation Index. A factor in which
navigators express a less positive view in comparison to pilots
23
_ .% ;).:......>: i,. :..-....'.......................... "'? '::', .... .............-' .2, ,-.... ,
. * -- , ' <. . , . . . . .- . v . . . . ¢' ; . ..- j . . , .- - v . -- - . I
* and non-rated officers is Task Significance, or the importance
of their job. Pilots and non-rated officers do not differ
significantly on this factor. There were no significant
differences among the study groups on the factor of Job
Feedback. Navigators have the lowest means on all six factors'A
that measure the organizational subarea of job enrichment.
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES: JOB ENRICHMENT
FACTOR GROUP MEAN SUBSETa
Skill Variety
NAVIGATORS 5.20 1NON-RATED 5.40 2PILOTS 5.67 3
Task IdentityNAVIGATORS 5.13 1NON-RATED 5.21 2PILOTS 5.32 3
Task SignificanceNAVIGATORS 5.56 1PILOTS 5.78 2NON-RATED 5.83 2
Need for EnrichmentNAVIGATORS 5.83 1PILOTS 5.99 2NON-RATED 6.15 3
Job MotivationIndex
NAVIGATORS 103.92 1PILOTS 109.68 2NON-RATED 133.40 3
aGroups not in the same subset are significantly
different at the .05 level.
24
In the organizational subarea of work group output, Table 3
provides a summary of the significant differences among the I
three groups. All three groups differ significantly from one
another in two of the five factors that measure work group
output: Pride and Job Related Satisfaction. While pilots
express a greater feeling of Pride in their work than either
navigators or non-rated officers, the non-rated group tends to
have higher perceived Job Related Satisfaction compared to both
pilots and navigators. These results are as this author
predicted in his hypothesis in Chapter Two. In the factor of
Advancement/Recognition, navigators' views are less positive and
significantly different from both pilots' and non--rated
officers' views. In both Work Group Effectiveness (Perceived
Productivity) and General Organizational Climate, pilots differ
significantly from both navigators and non-rated officers in
that they express more positive views in these two factors.
rn the subarea of the work group process, although in no
factor are all three groups significantly different from one
ancol her, pilots stand out as signi ficaii ly mor" posi ive than
the other two groups in three of the four, factors that measure
leadership and the work group prov'ess. These ftctors are
Management and Supervision, Supervisory Communications Climate,
,ind Organizational Communications Climate. Navigators and non-
rated officers are not significantly different in these three
fartors. The one factor in this subarea in which non-rated
25
..........................................*. .. ...........
. . . . . . . . •.
Twi
officers stand out as being significantly different from the
rated officers is Work Support. Pilots and navigators are not
significantly different in this factor which measures the degree
to which work performance is hindered by additional duties,
inadequate tools and equipment, or inadequate work space.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES: WORK GROUP OUTPUT
FACTOR GROUP MEAN SUBSETa
Pride
NAVIGATORS 5.34 1NON-RATED 5.44 2PILOTS 5.69 3
Advancement/RecognitionNAVIGATORS 4.07 1PILOTS 4.56 2NON-RATED 4.64 2
Work Group Effectiveness(Perceived Productivity)
NON-RATED 5.75 1NAVIGATORS 5.77 1PILOTS 5.86 2
Job Related SatisfactionNAVIGATORS 4.83 1PILOTS 5.24 2NON-RATED 5.46 3
General OrganizationalClimate
NAVIGATORS 5.13 1NON-RATED 5.17 1PILOTS 5.36 2
a.Groups not in the same subset are significantlydifferent at the .05 level.
Chapter Five presents a discussion of these results.
26
Chapter Five
DISCUSSION
The main purpose of this research was twofold: (a) to
identify job attitudes that are significantly different among
pilots, navigators, and non-rated officers in the United
States Air Force; and (b) to analyze those attitudinal
differences and make recommendations for leaders and
functional managers in the rated officer career field.
Although the results of this study show statistically
significant differences among the job attitudes of the three
study groups involved, the degree of variation foi most of the
factors considered is relatively small. One possible reason
for this can be found in analyzing the demographics of the
respondents. It becomes readily apparent that we are
studying a well-educated, predominantly male, relatively
young group of people who, for the most part, are leaning
toward making the Air Force a career. You may not see as
large a variation in their attitudes, for example, as you
would in a study which looked at the job attitudes of three
different groups of people in a large corporation. Although
all three groups of this study have specialized jobs within
the Air Force, the common bond of taking a commissioning oath
and serving in the defense of one's country instills certain
27
• . . . - - ., - . - . . - - . . .- % ,- .. - , - " '% .. ... . .. . . - '
common attitudes about one's job. Be that as it may, what
about those job attitudes that were found to be significantly
different among pilots, navigators, and non-rated officers?
First of all, the results of this research are consistent
with previous research in supporting the hypothesis that Job
Related Satisfaction is generally perceived to be significantly
higher by the non-rated officer force than by the rated
officer force. These results support the research of Talbot
(1979), Chiapusio (1980) and Henggeler (1981). To take these
results one step further, however, and break down the
perceptions of the rated officer force into pilots versus
navigators, this study found that pilots generally have a more
favorable perception of Job Related Satisfaction than
navigators. To reinforce this finding, navigators also
expressed the least positive views among all three study groups
on the OAP factors of Pride in their work and Advancement!
Recognition in their jobs. On the other hand, pilots expressed
the most positive views of all three study groups on the factor
of Pride and were a close second to the non-rated officers on
the factor of Advancement/Recognition.
What is a possible reason for navigators expressing the
least amount of Job Related Satisfaction of all three study
groups? This author believes a clue to the answer to thic
question lies in the fact that navigators, as a whole, expressed
the least positive views among all three study groups on all six
28
................................................
OAP factors that measure the organizational subarea of job
enrichment. Job enrichment on the OAP measures the degree to
which the job itself is interesting, meaningful, challenging,
and responsible. In other words, navigators in this study don't
see their jobs as being as interesting, meaningful, challenging,
or responsible as those of pilots or non-rated officers. This
can partially be explained by the fact that navigators' jobs are
slowly being replaced by new technology in navigation equipment.
For example, in MAC's C-141 strategic airlift mission,
navigators are no longer primary crewmembers on transoceanic
flights or on air-to-air refueling missions because of dual
inertial navigation systems (INS) installed in the C-141.
Although navigators still fly on airdrop missions, to put it
bluntly, the INS has basically replaced the navigator on C-141
basic airland missions. Another possible reason that navigators
express the least positive views concerning Job Related
Satisfaction is that navigators have historically felt that they
have taken a back seat to pilots--arid in a sense they have. Not
only in the aircraft do tth3y feel they take a back seat, but in
higher level command and staff positions as well. Gambrell
(1973) presents a good case study in support of this argument.
Only recently have navigators been given the opportunity for
commanding operational flying organizations and filling higher
level staff positions. As a result, the majority of navigators
are probably not realizing the "motivto:' jactors that Herzberg
referred to which ultimately lead to j-> si isfaction.
29
: -. -.-.-. -..... ...- . . ' . - .. .. .... .. .. . ...... .. .. ..... . . .. . ..; . .. . ..... ... .. .. .. .
-4- . _W_ r r r7- -
'
So, then, what about the other half of the rated officer
force--the pilots? Even though pilots expressed more positive
feelings of Pride in their work than the non-rated officers, why
is their level of Job Related Satisfaction significantly lower
than the non-rated officers? One possible reason, in this
author's opinion, is that pilots are not experiencing enough
Advancement/Recognition in their primary job of flying
airplanes. Non-rated officers had the highest perception of
Advancement/Recognition in their jobs. In other words, the
pilots' perception of doing a good job (high sense of Pride in
their work) does not necessarily equate with the perception of
Advancement/Recognition for doing a good job in today's Air
Force. Pilots are being primarily rewarded for doing a good job
by the "hygiene" factor of flight pay which does not necessarily
lead to job satisfaction, and which furthermore can't compete
with the civilian airline industry. Pilots realize that to be
competitive for higher level command and staff jobs in today's
Air Force (i.e., more advancement and promotion opportinity),
they have to get out of their primary job--that of flying. This
perception might be different in a wartime environment where
advancement and promotion opportunity for pilots would probably
be greater.
Another possible reason that pilots have a lower level of
Job Related Satisfaction than non-rated officers is something
T've already alluded to---flight pay. Pilots see what the
30
7 - .*..7' 7 '!I .w. 7
airline industry is offering commercial piloto-; for doing
basically the same job that they are doing in the Air Force.
The difference in flight pay is significant enough that pilots
will continue to leave the Air Force for the airlines. The year
1985 proved to be a record year for civilian flight crew hiring
and :!x-military pilots continued to be the preferred new hires
by the airlines (Ginovsky, 1986). With the civilian airline
industry being as competitive as it is today, incentive pay will
probably be the primary means of rewards and recognition for
good pilots in a peacetime environment.
Chapter Six will list conclusions arid recommendations based
upon this discussion and analysis of the results.
4
. . . . .-. L -- .
, !,
Chapter Six
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This research study looked at three groups of officers in
thf- Air Force and measured their attitudes (by means of the OAP
siirvey) on a number of relevant job and retention issues.
ReF-cults of this research indicate that significant attitudinal
differences exist among pilots, navigators, and non-rated
officers in today's Air Force. All three study groups differ
significantly from one another in three organizational subareas
of the OAP: the work itself, job enrichment, and the work group
output. As hypothesized, the factor of Job Related Satisfaction
is generally assessed significantly higher by the non-rated
officer force than by the rated officer force. Among the rated
officers, lowest perceptions of Job Related Satisfaction were
among the navigators. While the results did i~nt produce any
surprises, the finding that pilots repor~td lower Job Related "
Satisfaction than the non-rated officers and yet reported a
higher degree of Pride in their work seemed C(, this researcher
to he somewhat inconsistent.
'3
. .. . .. . . . . . ..h' -" - " " " - -"-"-" "-" - -"-" -" - - '-"-" "-" - .-- ' -. " --. '".---"-'" > -"- .- -- '"4 < . - "-*. -- - . "". "- ",*.
ConclusionsI.
While additional research could be conducted into analyzing
what variables or particular factors of Job Related Satisfaction
have the most impact upon pilots' and navigators' attitude3, the
common ones that we have heard before will probably emerge:
additional duties, pay and benefits, work schedule and time off,
and promotion and advancement opportunities. This author
believes the key to understanding the attitudinal differences
among pilots, navigators, and the non-rated officers in today's
Air Force lies in understanding that a peacetime flying
environment is quite different from a wartime flying environment
in terms of job satisfaction. In a wartime environment, pilots
and navigators would not have to seek the rated supplement or a
career-broadening job in order to be competitive for promotion
or to receive recognition for the job they're performing. With
that in mind, the following conclusions were drawn from this
research:
1. Both pilots and navigators are experiencing less
satisfaction with factors surrounding their jobs than are non-
rated officers in the Air Force.
2. Navigators in the Air Force have a less positive view
of the importance of their jobs in comparison to pilots and non-
rated officers, probably because their jobs are declining in
importance due to technology.
34
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . * -.. '.. . . .
3. Increasing flight pay for rated officers will not
necessarily lead to increased job satisfaction, but will help
solve rated officer retention problems.
Recommendatiorns
This study supports previous research that rated officers
are experiencing less Job Related Satisfaction than non-rated
officers in today's Air Force. This perceived difference in Job
Related Satisfaction will probably continue to contribute to the
retention problem of experienced pilots and navigators. Air
Force leadership should continue to work this problem in order
to reverse this trend among our rated force.
With this in mind, the following recommendations are made in
light of the present research:
1. Allow rated oificers who desire to actively fly
throughout their entire careers equal opportunities for.
promotion and recognition.
2. Increase the opportunities for navigators Lo gain
experience outside the navigator career field into areas where .
long-range career progression potential is greater.
3. Increase flight pay for rated officers commensurate
with their responsibilities and duties in the cockpit in order
to effectively compete with and offset civilian recruitment
efforts.
3"'
Pai
,:':
- a - a. * 'a.~. .*I
.....-. ..-.. .. ,, ,,.., ..... ... ... /-,-., .. ,,''.: .,,.: ,,.,'. / , ' '.,.-..',.,-,.. 'a- . ... . . -
REFERENCES
Air Force Policy Letter for Commanders (AFRP 190-1). (1979,October 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.
Allen, L., Jr. (1980, October). A letter meant for you.Airman 24, p. 49.
Blackburn, R. L., & Johnson, R. L. (1978). Turnover of juniorofficers. Master's thesis (LSSR 5-78B), Air ForceInstitute of Technology, Wright Patterson AFB, OH.
Bonnell, R. A., & Hendrick, K. D. (1981). Factors influencingthe turnover of rated United States Air Force officers withless than eleven years of service. Master's thesis (LSSR33-81), Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright PattersonAFB, OH.
Cantrell, G. K. (1969). Trends in aircrew attitudes and jobsatisfaction: A two year study (SAM-TR-69-17). BrooksAFB, TX: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.
Cantrell, G. K., & Hartman, B. 0. (1968). Trends in aircrewattitudes and job satisfactions (SAM-TR-68-19). BrooksAFB, TX: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.
Chiapusio, R. D. (1980). The rated supplement: Motivator or
millstone? A look at job satisfaction perceptions.(Report No. 0400-80). Maxwell AFB, AL: Air Command andStaff College.
Cooper, M. V. (1982). The flying squadron commander's role inrated officer retention. (Report No. 82-0580). MaxwellAFB, AL: Air Command and Staff College.
Dees, D. J., & Jokerst, R. P. (1985). Is pilot retention a
problem. Airlift, 7(2), 1-4.
Dryden, R. S., Kirschner, L. J. , & Hartman, B. 0. (1970).A third study of factors affecting aircrew morale(SAM-TR-70-55). Brooks AFB, TX: USAF School ofAerospace Medicine.
37
..._ .-~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..-.-. ........ .. ............ ........ ......-........ - .- ,,-- - .. . ,-,,: . -... ,. ,.,=,"-. . .. ..
-CONTINUED
Finneran, P. J., Jr. (1980). Chal1lenge te ke to ret ention(Report No. 0740-80). Maxwell AFB, AL: Air Command andStaff College. ,
Flier surplus makes 'supplement' attractive. (1985,rFebruary 25). Air Force Times, p. 16.
Gambrell, C. E. (1973). The navigator career: A case forreitlizatin (Report No. 1020-73). Maxwell AFB, AL: AirCommand and Staff College.•
%Giles, R. T. (1980). How effectiv is the Air Force rate d I
offier retentio prgram? (Report No. WP005-80). MaxwellAFB, AL: Air War College.
Ginovsky, J. (1985, March 25). AF to ask '87 hike in officerflight pay. Air Force Times, p. 1.
Ginovsky, J. (1986, January 20). 1985 record year for civilaircrew hiring. Air Force Times, p. 4.
Gulick, C. E., & Laakman, H. E., Jr. (1980). 4I ysis ofifcosifunigtetunvroUntdStates -Air Forcepilot in the si to el evnyq gr9qP, Master's thesis(LSSR 4-80), Air Force Institute of Technology. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.
Henggeler, W. M. (1981). Job satisfaction as an interaction of
rating (Report No. 1155-81). Maxwell AFB, AL: Air Commandand Staff College. -
Herzberg, F. Mauser, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The i
motivation to wo r k . New York: Wiley.
Hightower, J. M., & Short, L. 0. (1982). Factor stability of: the Organizational Assessment Package (LMDC-TR-82-1).- Maxwell AFB, AL: Leadership and Management Development
Center.
38
., , . . . . . .. . - . : ..I- . . : , . . . . . . .| | I I I
-J.
CONTINUED___Hunsicker, F. R. (1983). Organization theory for leaders.
In Concepts for Air Force leadership (pp. 2-51 to 2-56).Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press.
Maier, N. F. (1965). Psychology in Industry . Boston, MA:Mifflin.
Rittenhouse, S. S., & Wilkerson, D. A. (1982). How managementconsultation is improving Air Force productivity. DefenseManagement Journal, 18(4), 9-13.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1943). Management and
the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
SPSSx user's guide. (1983). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Talbot, T. R. (1979). Job satisfaction: Literature reviewand empirical test of a job tacet satisfactions model (GSM/SM79S-14). Wright Patterson AFB, OH: Air ForceInstitute of Technology.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). Principles of scientific management.New York: Harper.
lb
,.2
" ' " " • i | iI
APPENDIX'
Appendix A
Demographic Information
,'
'-
\..
f ::/4',
Appendix A
TABLE A- 1
Number of Respondents by Study Group
Pilots 2,514 (19.9"r)Navigators 1,003 ( 7.9%)Non-Rated 9,107 (72.2-0)
TABLE A-2
Sex by Study Group.............................................................................
Pilots (%) Navigvtors (%) Non-Rated (%)n = 2,514 1,002 9,076
MaIlC 99.5 99.3 82.9Feiale .5 .7 17.1
TABLE A-3
Age by Study Group
Pilots (%) Navigators (%) Non-Rated (%)n = 2,514 1,003 9 107 '
17 to 20 Yrs21 to 25 Yrs 16.0 8.3 11.520 to 30 Yrs 35.2 39.7 24.8.I to 35 Yrs 20.6 27.5 23.936 to 40 Yrs 20.2 13.7 20.141 to 45 Yrs 6.6 7.8 12.646 to 50 Yrs .9 2.3 4.3>50 Yrs .5 .8 2.8
NOTI: The number (n) is the total number of valid responses for thefactor being examined.
43
.*~.* . .. * ** .. .. a"
Appendix A
TABLE A-4
Time in Air Force
Pilots (%) Navigators (%) Non-Rated (%)
n = 2,513 1,002 9,088..............................................................................
I Yr .1 4.51 to 2 Yrs 2.S 3.3 6.32 to 3 Yrs 1O.S 7.9 6.83 to 4 Yrs 8.7 10.1 6.44 to 8 Yrs 27.1 25.2 19.98 to 12 Yrs 19.3 23.5 14.6)12 Yrs 31.8 30.0 41.5
TABLE A-5
Months in Present Career Field
Pilots (0) Naviators Non-Ratad (v)n = 2,495 987 9,053
<6 Mos 4.9 4.1 5.4
6 to 12 Mos 9.2 6.8 7.3
12 to 18 Mos 9.5 8.9 7.218 to 36 Mos 25.6 23.8 20.2
> 36 Mos 50.9 56.4 59.8
'I--
,14
.9
Appendix A
TABLE A-6
Months At Present D)uty Station
Pilots () Navigators (9,)- Non-Rated (%) en= 2,508 995 9,082
( 6 Mos 10.8 14.4 14.66 to 12 Mos 16.1 13.1 17.012 to 18 Mos 15.9 13.9 16.818 to 36 Mos 37.7 36.5 35.5,;P Mos 19.5 22.2 16.1
TABLEi A-7
Months In Present Position
Pilots (1%) Navigators () Non-Rated(%
n =2,504 998 9,072
S6 Mos 3t.2 25.9 2S.3to12 Mos 29.2 22.6 23.6 J
* 2to 18 Mos 10.8 16.5 17.21 S to i6 Mlos 18.0) 24.9 20.5
3'Mos 4J.8 10.0 7.1l
44
Appendix A
Table A-8 1
Ethnic Group
Pilots () Navigators_% Non-Rated )
n=2,502 994 9,064
*White 95.1 89.5 85.3Hispanic 1.0 2.3 2.7Black 1.0 3.0 7.5American Indian .8 1.0 .7Asian .5 1.7 1.7Other 1.6 2.2 2.2
Table A-9
Marital Status
Pi lots () Navigators () Non-Rated(%
n= 2,509 1,002 9,102
*Not Married 19.7 19.4 21.7 .
Married 79.8 79.2 76.5Single Parent.614.8I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
46
Appendix A
TABLE A-10
Spouse Status: Pilots
-- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - ----------------. .'
Geogrj~phically Separated ()Not Goo. Separated()n = 61 190
Civilian Employed 57.4 35.0
Not Employed 21.3 61.0Military Member 21.3 4.0
TABLE A-li
Spouse Status: Navigators
Geographilly Separited ('11 Not -Goo._ Seprated()n = 2772
Civilian Employed 72.7 29.7Not Employed 22.7 64.2Military Member 4.5 6.1
TABLE A-12
Spouse Status: Non-Raited
Geographical ly Seiparated (INot Goo. Sepziratcd(%
Civilian Employed 58.3 3 4. 5Not Employed 19.5 15.4Military Member 22.2 1.
47
'. ,, - I UP - . - L K- 4 k 17
Appendix A
TABLE A- 13
* Educational Level
Pilots (10) Navigators ()Non-Rated(%
n= 2,512 1,0)00 9,078
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[IS Grad or GED .1 .<2 Yrs College .3 .3>2 Yrs College .2 .5 1.8Bachelor's Degree 68.9 69.2 4.Master's Degree 30.8 29.6 39.7
*Doctoral Degree .1 3. 11.2
TABLE A-14
Professional Military Education
Pilots (1)) Navigpators (%0) Non-Rated(%
n = 2,509 1,001 9,097
None 32.6 29.7 35.4Phase I or 2 .1.5 1.3Command Academy .2 .2 1.6Sr NCO Academy 1.4'-q Officers School 29.2 31.3 25.5fnt Service School 29.9 29.0 20.9
1Sr '-rvicc, School 7.7 9.4 13.9
48
Appendix A
TABLE A-i5
Number People Directly Supervised
Pilots (%) Navigators ('O) Non-Rated(%
n = 2,368 912 8,594
None 50.5 69.1 3S.6I Person 4.8 5.9 8.12 People 5.1 4.1 7.03 People 9.5 3.9 8.141 to 5 People 11.2 6.1 15.36 to 8 People 7.0 4.7 11.69 or > People 12.0 6.1 14.4
TABLE A-16
Number People for Whom Respondent Writes APIZ/O[ER/Appraisal
Pilots () Navigators () Non-Rated )n =2,506 1,001 9,082
None 63.0 79.5 45.1I Person 4.7 S.7 10.92 People 4.7 3.1 8.13 People 6.8 2.0 -7. 8
41 to 5 people 10.3 4.8 12.30 to 8 People 6.4 3.4 9.61)or --People 4.2 1.5 6.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
* 49
Mr
Appendix A
TABLE A-17
Supervisor Writes Respondent'sOQER/Appraisal
. . . . . . . . ..-----------------------------------------------------.... .. --
Pilots (%) Navigators (%) Non-Rated (1)
n = 2,479 989 8,967
Yes 82.4 77.4 76.4No 13.1 15.7 14.2Not Sure 4.o 7.0 9.4
------------------------------------------------ --- -------------
TABLE A-18
Work Schedule
----------------------------------------------------. -------------
Pilots (%) Navigators (%) Non-Rated (%)
n = 2,487 992 9,017
Day Shift 19.1 21.5 74.3Swing Shift 3Mi d Sh i ft .1Rotating Shifts 5.0 4.1 4.8Irregular Schedule 20.2; 8.1 10.8Frequent TDY/On-call 10. f 0.7 7.6Crew Schedule 15.6 59.7 2.1
----------------------- ---------
50
. . .................................... .. ..............-
"r N7,
Appendix A
TABLE A- 19
Supervisor Holds Group Meet ings
Pilots () Navigators () Non-Rated ('0)
n =2,480 988 9,004
---------------------.--.- -- --- -- --- -- ---------------
Never 5.7 8.6 6.6Occasionally 22.8 30.4 22.2Monthly 16.5 16.1 13.1Weekly 37.9 35.2 44.2Daily 14.9 6.5 12.]Continuously 2.3 3.2 1.9
TABLE A-20
Supervisor Holds Group Meetings to Solve Problems
Pilots () Navigators ( Non-Rated(%
n =2,474 987 8,944
Never 14.0 17.8 15. 4)c c as iona IlIy 42.5 43.0 12.S1half the Time 2].2 19.0 22.4AlIways 22.4 20.2 19.7
Appendix A
TABLE A-21
Aeronautical Rating and Current Status
Pilots {", Navigators (%) Non-Rated (,)
n = 2,512 1,003 8,938
--------------- ------------------------------------------
Nonrated, not on aircrew .2 .2 85.0 INonrated, now on aircrew .2 .2 3.2Rated, on crew/ops job 90.6 84.4 2.9Rated, in support job 9.0 15.2 8.8
TABLE A-22
Career Intent
Pilots (%) Navi !tors(%) Non-Ratcd (%)
n = 2,502 999 9,053 ,
Retire 12 Mos 1.6 3.2 3.9Career 45.0 45.2 53.4Likely Career 29.1 28.8 19.9Maybe Career 18.6 14.9 14.1Likely Separate 4.2 4.8 5.3Separate 1.5 3.0 3.3
Note: The number (n) is the total number of valid responses for thefactor being examined.
52i
-4
r''
.1|
______________APPENDIX
Appendix B
Attitudinal Comparisons Among Pilots, Naivigators,
and Non-Rated Officers
674
Appendix B
TABLE B-i
Comparison of OAP Factor Scores
Among Pilots, Navigators, and Non-Rated Officers
TUE WORK ITSELF
*Mean- SD Subset df F
*JoI) Pcrfoirmance Goals 2,12130) 4 0 .8 2 ***
Pi lots 4.88 .88 3Navigators 4.70 .94 2Non-Rated 4.68 1.011
Task Characteri sties 2,12197 19.42k**Pilots 5.41 .88 3Navigators 5.19 .96 1Non-Rated 5.34 .96 2
Task Autonomy 2,12226 477.32***Pilots 3.99 1.30 1Navigators 3.92 1.34 1Non-Rated 4.78 1.30 2
Work Repetition 2,12418 103.39***Pilots 4.57 1.30 2Navig-iters 4.67 1.28 3Nor-Rated 4.21 1.39 1
fle! ired Reptitive/Easy Tasks 2, I. ?,u5.2 1.31
Pilots ').40 1 .00 1Na v iga tors 2.53 1.03 1Non-Rated 2.47 1.06 1
.Job Related Training 29852 17.06Pilots 5.19 1.28 3Navigators 4.86 1.36 2Non-Ra'ted 4.52 1.50 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -
Note: Groups not in the same subset are signi fic;intly di Efereiit at the.05 level.
kp <(05. *p.01 . *k*p( .001 .
rr
.. ... 9 1.
* Appendix B
TABLE B-1 (continued)
JOB ENRICHMENT
Mean SD Subset df F
Skill Variety 2,121199 61.69***Pilots 5.7 1.17 3Navigators 5.20 1.301 1Non-Rated 5.40 1.30 2
Task Identity 2,12166 10.68Pilots 5. 32 1.15 3Navigators 5.13 1.20 1Non-Rated 5.21 1.23 2
Task Significance 2,12518 20.70***Pilots 5.78 1.16 2Navigators 5.56 1.31 1Non-Rated 5.83 1.27 2
Job Feedback 2,12486 2.95Pilots 4.87 1.11 1Navigators 4.82 1.20 1Non-Rated 4.90 1.20 1
Need for E~nrichment 2,12207 8 3. 06Pilots 5.99 .85 2
Navigators 5.83 .97 1Non-Rated 6.15 .85 3
Jot) Motivation [ndex 2.11414 168.5('Pilots 109.68 58.15 2Navigators 103.92 59.19 1Non-Rated 133.40 69.14 3
NOTE: Groups not in the same subset are significantly different at the
.05 level.
*p <.05. **p<.01. ***p< .001.
5.6
i 56
* ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix B
TABLE B-I (continued)
------ ------------------------------------------------~ --..............---WORK GROUP PROCESS
---- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean SD Subset df F---- ---------------------------------------------------------------------Work Support 2,12037 73.68***
Pilots 4.35 1.04 1Navigators 4.39 1.06 1Non-Rated 4.63 1.10 2
Managemen~t and Super- 2,11782 lO.34***vis 5ion
Pilots 5.42 1.18 2Navigators 5.30 1.26 1 -
Non-Rated 5.28 1.39 1
Supervisory CommunicationsClimate 2.11530 1O.74***
Pilots 4.98 1.28 2Navigators 4.86 1.32 1Non-Rated 4.83 1.46 1
Organ izat ionalCommunications Climate 2,11642 15.89***
Pilots 5.02 1.16 2Navigators 4.83 1.20 1 i~Non-Rated 4.86 1.29 1
---- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Groups not in the same subset are significantly differtt the.05 level.
e a
* p < .05. **p .~.01. ***p < .00!.
57
113- -- 1 - - - -j -. w ,~p -. r 77- WTO VVY -y VV-7r~rxF
Appendix BNI
TABLE B-I (continued)
WORK GROIP OUTPUT
Mean SD Subset df F
Pride 2,12453 37.80***Pilots 5.69 1.27 3Navigators 5.34 1.38 1Non-Rated 5.44 1.42 2
Advancement/Recognition 2,11958 97.65**Pi lots 4.56 1.10 2Navigators 4.07 1.13 1Non-Rated 4.64 1.20 2
Work Group Effectiveness 2,12080 9.75***
Pilots 5.86 .94 2Navigators 5.77 1.05 1Non-Rated 5.75 1.12 1
Job Related Satisfac-
tion 2,11264 156.85* *
Pilots 5.24 1.02 2Navigators 4.83 1.19 1Non-Rated 5.46 1.08 3
General OrganizationalClimate 2,11711 22.13**A
Pilots 5.36 1.15 2Navigators 5.13 1.23 1Non-Rated 5.17 1.28 1
Note: Groups not in the same subset are significantly different at the.05 level.
Ap <05. k~K.1 kp<. 001 .
58 " " P I"
___ ___ ___ ___ __APPENDIX
Appendix C
Organizational Assessment Package Survey:
Factors and Variables
59 All.
° ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT
PACKAGE SURVEY
4"!i
FACTORS
AND'.1,
VARIABLES
JANUARY 1986
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT CENTERAIR UNIVERSITY 61
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-5712
.mI I)-
Zi t
0 a
VV C
CL L0 UVU
ON wlaw
0 Z U z e- .0 L. 01 0,0
mt CCc
*%L a L p5
a* a a.
-oOZ a u 5- 5a i s o-. 01, 0cj
2 a- . 0 1
06 Us; U a ta
c tae -0U 36
sacc 0,a U. - IU t
Leat sa Ut -. U
u-a. ~ ~ L -00 U CS S-a ULoU UL 0 1 C3 cU U a to, -m cUC Ma "L L La S cac "c u/ aI
-30~ w L aCa e IDC1 0 a nUOD UM Un ca -Lu =O %- : .c C Uaa a in0 3 if V.J S a 5 U L '
D LD 5 - UmD coc CD CD LI U 0a oto 4 M o .1
O01r~~~ %-a UZ- USIVIMD a
C01L L a.-..ej v-na ea eacLa na m~4 3Lneif if a S 0
2 00 a. C U3L0 03t550 VOCIX t ~zl0 10 C 1 aC2tD LUCLU US L - , 0 * SlC U L 3 3 5 U
LU L- . UI 'a, S
c m-V -O
Lc F" ... aC - V 1-44
CUC 0~t~ L C U
U S C a 3 C -
Lh3CU *a II 0 LUaOr - o C - a aL U v0 a. uu- -0 !
- e l 0
a-0 if0 a- C W
VC- -- -it 01 Ua LocmC - -
0 co a t - it- cC z ''I
t. 0L3. m U.0C a - Oz zC Ucc - DU I PN
Co U00 w 33T 01 ZS - Sm 0tV0 - U eLw LC CM -- all- 0 U Lt
-w CS C US 0 0 SU U -C - U U -,2: tC I it
OZa! -a a.- I .2 . -- I U" - 55'
U .2 OIa U -- V' t
o11 -K~ I~- n o. . . .-. .c .Ua Ca
C-C -asi Sa cs I al-. 0'U S U -. C s -S-P.J~~ ~~ LU UL .L ULD L 5. U
( c 3 L L S D 1 C U P O C 0 U - U S E- U(5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c in 0 t u , a t S 0U - S . - e s1C2. 0
U.4~~~~O CDtai CUCC COU aW U3 C -U UU ais~~~C mU 5 a - .- IU ta U uR a - * . Ca
u 41C os w.5 - U - a e S L ~ n D D eOtt~~~~~ ~~~ C'a z C S U V Lf U - U ~ C. t~ -
*~~~- .717~p~ T*WcTJ
Wccc ct u .
~~iugI L 0 e Cp
-~ ~~~ C..c . * ..
ccc . e *a.ft a. .a, - tt. sc .? 1 ..-
z z xi C. a. w .Z . C .. 0 C ~ e
.a 5 t e 2.. 2 C m. ..
cI', c Iii - CCC a U-. Mg V ~ .:eaa c- 9 c Uu
*E E
a c c a c ~c c *c ~ -. u
.7..
0 42
v C;.. v S Z .
-. I Ir .
~ I ~j .I
II C ~- ..4C- .4~
64 0
% .~
.~.'-.s--... .~. - ..- - -- ~-.".- -.-...-
0 *~ -- I,, ~ -1~" - S .
a.. 01~I
g
~- - I - S..,i:.. 2: ~
Co -. .. ~ -u I -~ -,~- ir: U -.
CCC C - - C*LL :~., 0U CL CL CCC
t..s MW L~* CO *,C ~ .0~.
-''DC - a Z~ 2"I ~* -C - I)- -~ a * ~ !.!! -0W~ -- C -~ -. a
L - I-) '-30!iO* ~-- 1=~-u 3..0 ~
q Cu.. - -;~- 2 1*u -s
L~3~* 0-.. C ,.-.~ -
~ C C
-- '-S~- :i:~ d SI a
* C U - ~,uo- 3 -~
* --CU. C -00 *'C*~
O * , aga *~ 8'; ZI -c
C. C *~ C L - I0.0,1 'SwI ~ *
-I - ~ .~ C,
~ ~
U~ .~ ~ '~L
* -0 a ~C I...
- 'I 3 ~. M
~ 5; 3 C.-
C ~ S '-5 3.- C - C t.-c -~ a; z~
- 0~- g a~ .~ ~--3..- @3
~ ±~ V ~C ~ CLO.. ANC -- - ~-
0. 0. C 0*5.- *~ *~ 0.00[ L3 * ~' ,.-
.~.! E.~ = ~ 0-0a - ~S."J '.
~ - U.1. CC ~U 1. Si
- -.-.----- -eC* ~ ~C ~l1. U-C
~ .~. .. . I0% CU. a I
II
Ca.0
'-'I.
-3.- , - 8
* C U 5C~ C1.0
a U
*0 0'
0--U
.4
N-'
.~~~~ .- . . .....
I li
06 BOB
I-
c i,
~~J 4 S "I. c
3.0 - 4
Cc 1. -1 1.
1 . 03
* a V- 23. 0 ~u .S ~ -to~~~~ 3 - V U . .* *U f
m-~ M C
~~..~i tsr -0 go = 5
- -0
0~~ C lL
u = u~ MUS 05-- . I
-: VCXs0f of'3 3
Vol L IL 61,
z 30 "0
- L m - 4
MIS -- tc Mv
-1 -'
Li C
4 0
S *t.-
v* WV A'U V -%,'TW l -v -W -i .- mJ -L N- W- . .
.- 9
01a L a ~ .r 5 b
* I.-- CLC C, 55 a-- 36 1 L C-E i
oe - . a-t ,a C ,- ' 1 %
* 1 .8 -, W- 06w20 tlC " 3 t .- ,
.1;~~~ s. I~ :.. i.ow.Idr 8
-001 C2 ?j tOE C: LU *
L.. f Lt w- = . u
I'M a c-a -
vo- 0 0
9.-C.
W" am 4. 133 a r E0. 0
C. 0
Z- c
v 09
o-C . . . ..
o 0
n*WIC 00 a9CC s~ '.- --XC
07 0-P e_ - -t-j2.
I-0
VV
10 M- * -
I F.
CLt WE * S 6 0
'0~~ ~ c*4
t2 EE :m.-~S - C
! 0 CoU 0 & -U-
c i -L -X Li T
C9 a, O5 0W C,
-l K - -1
v3 3
r1 f Zi -0 a! h.
~ A1 ~ s~ t s-b go
C3I
St 1.3 - It : n2 0
w~l w . 1. Z . 1 .
SC 5. 6- '0f - -( -8
4 c,
* a*
LIZ _, 5 :3
~w
C S. .3 z w4.4
~. k* .~ ~ z -:4
aa a'~ A 0* af 0, - L 30;4/
m3 a ~ S o .1 *" ,; :fz -. ! - 04~
Z4 - 44 -44. .!2 o ..c ks l U p-
-
4.4*4 g 1g; " 0m L
m cL
CLw 0
c --
"CCZ44 u4 - N c
11 .J. v L
L ~ & rl q 4U
5~~ 1 0- --
.00
44- j
I i~ '3
t4; - '*SR2A
J 2 Z ~3 . 4 4
.4. 4 - 3~ ~ L ~ 2 - 409L.. L L L L Lt L 00 077"C
-c1
U~~~~ L -
0 1. 5~
0. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 L a - = r z ~ 0 ~
.4 -C .4 * 0 'a L
C =0 F-C .; -- ~ .0 9 -
0 C,
-c 0
Ab .3U .04
.9 - q -,.
Oat~
oL Lo -Z L.
- 0 .9 ' 0 rig
9toil 2U 0
2 ~ % a L- L
v c
-C . - . I0
W -u 00
o~t %.3
* .70
0 .4 -
1. L. -
5 we 00A 41 I. & -
L 2!
. 0 10.~.
a~ A
CU-~= - -0..
le, 's4- 0 .
iL~ ~~~~ L I 4 -~
u 0
C C
SO U 0
ul ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' is , - , a a i
c 0 a ' 0 'al .9
46 .
71 U -
'%T7 -w-o!
-1 11 01~ I :..
c1 . *1. 30 ' M
w*z -z
K - 3 *~~ ~ p-L- 5. O 3 i *!5 ~ .m.-g A-ieu
0- RO h s siacC
a ca
tv m
720
rr~rr3Yr rr~r? - . * ~ -~ r~rw r' ~u L WW C%- - .r. , % x, I .- - - 7
a~ 2 p
C-Cc
Us -
w -- 0
I3 X 0 ~ L
2 * .. LC -L ~ t . *~ a I Cu main
- ~ a: 73
.21
o cL S
C-1 2 - r
"0 0w 9.0 3
w 9,
CS -9.01-- .! 3aM oil ~ C C S -5- 3
SC S S - 4C -
L. S. I. I 5-C W ~ L L5 L
74
0~ a-7 1
_ I. -.. -
-tm - i I I I - - I .I -: